Australian universities: governance in crisis
Recent reporting from Four Corners, The Saturday Paper and the Senate inquiry into university governance has made visible what many university staff have been saying for years: the problems are not isolated, and they are not confined to one campus.
Across the sector, we are seeing recurring patterns: restructures announced with inadequate consultation, job cuts justified by opaque financial claims, course cuts pushed through with limited academic input, growing use of external consultants, executive salaries that bear little relationship to ordinary staff conditions, and governing bodies that too often operate at a distance from the people who actually make universities work.
Four Corners described Australian universities as being in turmoil, with deep cuts to jobs and courses causing fury across campuses. Its investigation examined how financial pressures, debt, public funding settings and corporate-style decision-making have pushed public universities towards crisis.
One of the most striking figures was the reported $1.8 billion spent by Australian universities on consultants and contractors in 2024. That is a staggering amount in a sector where staff are routinely told that budgets are tight, workloads must increase, and courses or jobs may need to go.
These are not isolated controversies
The reporting around ANU, UTS and other universities shows a broader sector problem.
At ANU, Four Corners reported on concerns about the evidence base for major cost-cutting and restructures, including findings from a draft Australian National Audit Office review. The Saturday Paper has also reported serious misconduct allegations concerning former ANU vice-chancellor Genevieve Bell, including allegations relating to the appointment or promotion of a close associate; those allegations should be treated as allegations unless and until finally determined.
At UTS, The Saturday Paper reported that vice-chancellor Andrew Parfitt told a federal inquiry he knew about a KPMG-produced list of “underperforming” researchers connected to a $100 million cost-cutting drive, despite earlier claims from his office that such a list did not exist.
The details differ from institution to institution. But the pattern is familiar: major decisions affecting staff, students and academic work are made through processes that are often opaque, highly managerial, and insufficiently accountable.
Why this matters to UQ staff
It would be comforting to think these are problems elsewhere. They are not.
UQ staff know the same pressures: intensifying workloads, constant restructures, administrative churn, managerial “change processes”, centralised decision-making, and consultation that can feel more like a compliance step than genuine participation.
Governance is not an abstract issue for councils, chancellors and vice-chancellors. It is a workplace issue.
Governance shapes:
whether workloads are manageable or quietly allowed to blow out
whether staff are genuinely consulted or merely informed
whether restructures are evidence-based or predetermined
whether insecure work is treated as a problem or a business model
whether staff and students have a real voice in university decisions
whether public money is spent on teaching, research and support — or on consultants and executive management
When governance fails, staff carry the cost. Students carry the cost. The public mission of the university carries the cost.
Universities are public institutions
Universities are not private corporations. They are public institutions with public responsibilities.
They exist to educate, research, create knowledge, serve communities, support democratic debate, and contribute to the public good. Their governance should reflect that purpose.
That means transparency. It means accountability. It means proper staff and student representation. It means governing bodies that understand teaching, research, professional work and the realities of campus life. It means executive pay and conduct being subject to public-interest standards.
The Senate inquiry into university governance has already identified major concerns across the sector, including vice-chancellor pay, transparency, the composition of governing bodies, the role of consultants, and the need for stronger regulation. Its interim report called for reforms including greater staff and student involvement in university councils and stronger oversight of executive remuneration.
The solution requires organised staff
Governance reform will not happen just because the problem has been exposed.
Universities are very good at absorbing criticism, issuing statements, commissioning reviews, and then continuing much as before. Real change requires pressure.
That is where union organising matters.
When staff join the NTEU, participate in workplace campaigns, support bargaining claims, speak collectively, and take protected industrial action when necessary, we build the power needed to change how universities are run.
This is not separate from bargaining. Governance failures show up directly in bargaining issues: workload, job security, consultation rights, change management, academic freedom, professional staff recognition, and respect for the work that holds the university together.
A better university sector will not be handed down from above. It will be built by organised staff and students insisting that universities serve the public good.
For UQ staff, the message is simple.
If you are worried about where the sector is heading, join your union, the NTEU. If you are already a member, get active. Join an Issues Group. Talk to colleagues. Participate in bargaining meetings in your school or organisation unit. Support collective action.
Because better governance starts with power — and university workers build power together.